I know I should be attending more to my car repairs and house repainting (I was a victim, too, of the recent massive flooding of Metro Manila, thanks to Cyclone Ketsana) than mull over whether Obama deserved his N— Peace Prize, but there’s something I have to get out from the far recesses of my flood-clogged brain and mud-addled heart.

I don’t – and personally can’t – begrudge Obama of his N— Peace Prize. He’s got a lot to show more than I can. I can only boast of swimming in rushing 20-foot floodwaters at the height of the deluge last September 26.

The Nobelization

The pomp and pageantry, ritual and ceremony, award and 1.4 mil USD all demand something in return: Great Expectations. So, while he’s at it, it would be most welcome if he dips his fingers into:

1) Darfur - where he should really sack his envoy there for not giving him the complete picture of things. Sudan is about to self-destruct in 2011 with a referendum that will allow South Sudan to vote on severing its ties with the North and declaring independence. As everyone expects, the South will vote overwhelmingly for independence from the abuses of the Khartoum Islamist government. (While he’s at it, he can also look into how al-Bashir can possibly wear impunity on his sleeve, while sauntering in all-white outfits).

2) Zimbabwe - to ease some of Tsvangirai’s burdens as he slams against Mugabe’s government-cum-criminal syndicate. It’s the least he can do to Tsvangirai after bumping him off the prize.

3) Guinea - where women were recently raped in public, in broad daylight by the Guinean soldiers, etc.

And because we are all saying now that he just has to earn his Nobel, and that he was awarded based only on potential and promise, he might as well look into:

1) The eviction epidemic in Phnom Penh.

2) The ties that bind Rumsfeld and Tamiflu, as well as the real origin of swine flu and its unleashing in Mexico. Also, how Rumsfeld was able to buy the biggest shares in Gilead, the manufacturers of Tamiflu, for USD18 billion.

3) Why Putin and Medvedev may no longer be blood brothers, which could ultimately affect this nuclear deterrence thing, knowing full well that Putin is a leftover of the old Cold War being a former KGB spy

It would do Obama a world of good (and his Nobel, too) if he:

1) Lessens a bit his worry over the nuclear hardware technical cooperation between Russia and Iran, because would Russia really want a nuclear bomb-capable Iran? Besides, forging friendship with erstwhile arch-enemy Russia looks a lot more like peacekeeping than aiming to have pleasantries with braggadocio-inclined Ahmadinejad. Also, there’s the entire UN Security Council to clip Ahmadinejad’s lofty nuclear flight. He must also let Ban Ki-moon work more lest Ban goes boating through the Antarctic and Arctic ice once again.

2) Summons the Holy Spirit to truly give him light as to the right decision concerning NATO’s request for 40,000-60,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. (Not that the Taliban’s condemning of his Nobel really matters.) He should really think deeply about the US counter-insurgency strategy of ‘protecting the population rather than killing the enemy.’ Where his thoughts lie is also how his Nobel will be deemed in the next few weeks.

3) (And most importantly, now that he has a N— Peace Prize) Starts thinking that there’s more to the world than the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. PEACE, after all, is pro-active. The award should make him go beyond troubleshooting and proving to be un-Bush.

Riding on the Crest of this Debate

Of all the pros and cons that I have been willingly swamped with via news and opinion from media as to the Nobelization of Barack, two things struck me the hardest:

1) That Obama’s Nobel is premature
2) That past US presidents had won it, too, but only after some proof of peacekeeping

“Obama’s Nobel is premature.”

Because they were the ones that gave the award, we just have to believe the Norwegian Nobel Committee that “Obama was the person to contribute the most to peace in the last year — a key criteria of Alfred Nobel’s will — by putting emphasis on multilateral diplomacy, rather than unilateral military action.”

After all, he did “improve international climate and emphasized negotiations and dialogue.” He cheered the Iranians via a surprise video, and generally reached out to the Muslim world. He backslapped with Medvedev. He guffawed with Hugo Chavez. He did not issue any stern look when Berlusconi gave Michelle the Berlusconi eye. Even Fidel Castro cheers his Nobel.

‘Multilateral diplomacy’ was the ace that bagged Obama the prize. This is right smack into the Norwegian group’s ideals. The Nobel Committee is composed of former members of government and parliament, and these people will naturally prioritize efforts that ‘impact on current political processes and will want to see progress on issues as diverse as nuclear disarmament, the conclusion of a climate treaty in Copenhagen or the increased use of multilateral institutions like the UN — which Norway is very supportive of — as a tool for international diplomacy.’

The Nobel Committee wants talk and diplomacy, and that’s what they saw in Obama.

But while Obama thought of sending his Secretary of State to precarious Pyongyang, the Secretary of State’s husband stepped in just in time make a trip instead. It would really test Obama’s mettle if he sends the same Secretary of State to meet with the Taliban, Hillary being one boisterous laugher who is also wont to wear bright-colored clothes and high heels – things that the Taliban aren’t fond of.

Therefore, we can hardly argue with the award-givers who firmly said, “We want to emphasize that he has already brought significant changes. All these things have already taken place and this already has had a very significant impact on international relations. We do of course hope that there will be many concrete changes over the years, but when a president makes all these changes on these ideals, which are the ideals the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had for 100 years, we felt it was right to strengthen him as much as we can in this further struggle for these ideals.”

Case closed.

“Past US presidents had won it, too, but only after some proof of peacekeeping.” (while aiding the flourish of modern America’s age of war)

1) Woodrow Wilson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919. ‘He brought America into the carnage of the First World War’ that ended in 1918. Wilson won the award a year after the war ended.

2) Teddy Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 ‘as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines.’

The Philippines did not exactly gain its freedom from Spain. America bought the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam from Spain for a paltry few million dollars which could very well match the amount Imelda Marcos used to single-handedly spend on her spring wardrobe.

On December 10, 1898, the signing of the Treaty of Paris gave the United States control of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Treaty of Paris officially ended the Spanish-American War.

After many Filipinos died during this war (that the US was desperate to wage to show to the world that it was ready to wrest ownership of countries from Spain, in fulfillment of the proverbial and infamous Manifest Destiny), the US staged a mock ‘Battle of Manila Bay.’ But it was all a show of cannon work because behind the scene, cash had already earlier changed hands.

Teddy Roosevelt received his Nobel ‘not long after he’d displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino “monkey men” in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as “the missing link” in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam’s imperial credentials.’

3) He would have been president but missed the post. Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the same year he started his term as the 56th United States Secretary of State. ‘’He had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years.’ He has been accused of war crimes for the policies he promoted during the Vietnam War. He played a significant role in the establishment of dictatorial regimes in Latin America, such as:

In 1970, Salvador Allende, a socialist, won the presidential election in Chile. Three years later, Allende was removed in a coup and murdered and the fingerprints of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Henry Kissinger were all over the plot.

Kissinger gave the go ahead to Suharto’s invasion of East Timor and subsequent massive war crimes and genocide there.

Kissinger may very well rival Pol Pot for the title of “Butcher of Cambodia.” Either one has the dubious honor of being the person responsible for the death of the largest number of innocent people in South East Asia. The wholesale slaughter was eagerly facilitated by Kissinger. The United States and its allies gave economic, military, and political support to Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge. The “secret bombing” of Cambodia by the Nixon-Kissinger tandem may have killed as many Cambodians as were executed by the Khmer Rouge. The U.S.-imposed holocaust was a “sideshow” to the Vietnam War.

Knowing all these, I heave a sigh of relief that Obama was awarded based on promise and potential. Hail, Barack! And, Nobel, thank you for changing your tack.

Postscript:

For those who think that the Nobel Peace Prize is idiotic, just think of it this way: you can murder thousands of people – Vietnamese, Timorese, Chilean, Argentineans, Germans, Cambodians, Filipinos, Europeans, even Americans, and, oh yes, Afghans, and still win a Peace Prize.

Today’s elections in Afghanistan is proof that democracy struggles to exist and assert its presence in a country that is otherwise overrun by a motley of warlords and tribal warriors, and ‘where clan, tribe, hierarchy and tradition trump all.’

There have been descriptions of this kind of Afghan democracy as crude democracy, infant democracy, unsophisticated democracy, fake democracy, etc. Whatever style of democracy it is, it’s certainly not the foreign concept of Western-style democracy which has not really permeated the Afghan psyche.

The Taliban want Hamid Karzai out. Understandably so. By all indication, he is a US puppet. The Taliban vow to wreak havoc on the 17 million eligible voters who may cast their votes today for a president and provincial councils. The threat is not too difficult to grasp since they root for pro-West incumbent Karzai’s defeat. Karzai is deemed to be enjoying much material resource backing from the US, as well as from Afghanistan’s biggest and most brutal warlord.

Karzai is desperate to stay in power. He has enlisted the support of General Rashid Dostum, a politically treacherous ex-warlord. Many, including the US, fear that Dostum’s covert but active hand in Afghan politics will bring about ‘yet another vicious cycle of bloodshed and lawlessness. Forced to flee Afghanistan last year after claims that he brutalized a political rival, General Dostum is – to the horror of Western diplomats – now emerging as a key player who could be instrumental in delivering an election victory for Karzai.’

According to Political Islam-Wfol.tv:

Best known for allegedly overseeing a massacre of 2,000 Taliban prisoners following the US-led invasion in 2001, General Dostum controlled large swaths of northern Afghanistan for years. He remains the de facto leader of the country’s ethnic Uzbeks and his return is likely to consolidate their vote behind Mr Karzai. But the warlord’s triumphant return from Turkey on Sunday has exposed Mr Karzai to renewed accusations that even if he wins the election he will remain in hock to thugs and human rights abusers.

President Karzai, who has made a series of backroom deals with unsavoury mujahedin leaders to secure the votes they control, gave General Dostum carte blanche to return last week, in exchange for his support. General Dostum is said to have once strapped a soldier accused of theft to the tracks of a tank and driven him around until the man’s body was reduced to shreds.

The Taliban want Karzai to be defeated, preferably by his main challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, who hails from the north. The reason behind this still points to regional political factionalism – largely of tribe mentality. If someone from the north wins and eventually rules the country, the Taliban believe this would ignite fervor in the Pashtun-dominated south, ‘making ordinary folk more receptive to the Taliban.’

But it probably does not matter too much to the US whether or not Karzai is re-elected. The US Af-Pak strategy is only about installing a pro-US civilian government as was the case in equally Taliban-addled Pakistan.

Islamism is trying to remake Central Asia. On the other hand, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wants to expand. Afghanistan happens to be the current theater offering the spectacle of this clash of interests.

They can do the warlord dance in Kabul. They can pass around oodles of drug money around. They can go ahead and fund private militias. They can burn down all poppy fields and opium factories. Pakistani intelligence can even withdraw its cash support to the Pashtun Taliban. All these, however, do not matter to the US. What the US is really worried about is the Taliban support from certain Persian Gulf potentates.

Never mind the results of today’s elections, the real competition in Afghanistan is between US and Taliban, or more specifically, Western-style democracy versus Islamism – the new world disorder.

She passed away 8 hours ago, after a 16-month battle with colon cancer which doctors found a week ago to have spread to her liver.

I don’t wish to remember Cory on her last days when she started to look gaunt and frail. That part only reminds me of my dad whom I lost to cancer 13 years ago. After all these years, that still brings a lump to my throat.

I don’t even wish to remember her as the former president of the Philippines whose administration was riddled with unsuccessful military coup attempts by the same soldiers who helped her gain the presidency.

Her winning the title of TIME Woman of the Year just rests in the far recesses of my brain. Worldwide media showcased her and revealed her entire wardrobe in yellow, and the color isn’t exactly my favorite.

She gave flesh to the meaning of People Power, but I have never really understood the wisdom of the crowds.

I recall Cory Aquino in a different light.

I remember her as the embodiment of a rare occasion when a stereotype not only cracks the mold but also shatters the norm.

Cory stands as the symbol of unity during the time when one country was rendered asunder by the machinations of a 21-year US-backed dictatorship.

When I remember Cory Aquino, I recall Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Augusto Pinochet of Chile, two US-backed dictators who were almost on simultaneous two-decade terroristic regimes.

When I remember Cory, I remember Imelda Marcos whose collection of thousands of pairs of gaudy shoes is legend of the infamous kind. While Imelda forever dripped in diamonds, Cory almost always went without jewelry and make-up. While Imelda’s flashy couture came in shimmering colors, Cory wore only austere black and nondescript yellow.

Cory did not exactly topple Marcos. The Filipino people did. An overwhelming People Power Revolution that vomited Marcos’ power and pelf sent an ample enough message to the US that it was time for it to end its support to Marcos’ puppet government. And so the US decided to whisk away the ailing and aging Marcos on a huge US military helicopter and flew him to Hawaii in the nick of time, lest Marcos’ own countrymen dismember what’s left of his sorry physical self.

Cory, the former housewife whose personal joy consisted mostly of baking and cooking for her brood, was the poster girl of that People Power Revolution back in 1986.

She proved that, yes, an extremely powerful Third World regime backed by the most powerful nation on earth, only seems infallible.

The woman, the icon, the unfailingly prayerful Catholic girl, the housewife ended the bloody reign of an astute dictator who wore impunity on his sleeve, much in the style of Mugabe, al-Bashir, Ceausescu, Chavez, and others.

When I remember Cory, I think of countries such as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, and all those other places on earth that are owned by dictators. I secretly wish they have their own Cory.

Because of her I have come to personally realize that democracy is a painful thing.

Because of her, I have come to personally confirm that the female stereotype, in a largely conservative and patriarchal society, can be shattered.

Rest in peace, Tita Cory. You make me proud to be a Filipina.

In Jack Balkin’s Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology, memes are said to be the foundation of ideological thought, and that they form the cultural ideas behind racism. In other words (and I take it that), if your community believes that religion segregates the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and the benignly evil from the malevolently evil, then you would have a bunch of people who has been culturally trained to be racist. The thoughts of racism (as concretized, discretely or otherwise, by segregation) are transferred down the generations through cultural narratives.

The ability of religion to manifest wrath and hatred has the same and equal space occupied by the capability to have such other concepts as free speech, freedom of expression, free trade, free love, etc. - all under the vermillion and periwinkle sky of freedom, or that which differentiates humans from pigs caged at slaughterhouses.

You want to be able to conduct your summer solstice procession, or attend the Christmas Eve Mass at 4am, or do ablutions in your temple? Then, you have to accept that your freedom to do so is equal to that of others wanting to express their culture in some ways that may be construed as violent. That’s the price to pay for such freedom.

But there’s a problem there somewhere.

There is the meme of religious fellowship, of religious celebration, of bliss in the hereafter, of religious tolerance, of religious intolerance, and of interfaith dialogue. The problem with religious conflict (even the pseudo and quasi types that harp on religious differences) is that: while the meme of religious hate is graspable; it is not to be trusted.

Unfortunately to non-harbingers of it, hatred is a meme not to trust. Some people would rather celebrate life than be caught in bad mood. There are other radical pursuits that need not be fundamentalist.

At the end of the day (or should I say, at the end of the world), those who propagated religious hatred would have wasted a lifetime of what could have been peaceful years.

Often, the willful imprisonment in the gulag of dogma is suspect. The Islamist ambition conveniently cloaks itself with persecution complex. Where’s the honor in that? Such is the thinking of those who do not trust the meme of religious hate.

The Philippines is currently on red alert not only because of yesterday’s twin bombings in Indonesia but also because of the series of bombings in southern Philippines a little over a week ago. The jihad umbilical cord that connects the two countries is one Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terror group that isn’t exactly a tyro in its militant career.

The Philippines and Indonesia have witnessed other bombings in the past, no thanks to this group. Thousands of lives have been lost through the years because of these bombings.

JI is largely an Indonesian group but two of its top career officers are hiding in southern Philippines. The 2002 Bali bombers, Dulmatin and Umar Patek, both A-grade bomb experts, have trained the Abu Sayyaf (terror group in the Philippines) in the past. The camps of the Abu Sayyaf, in turn, have also served as training camp for JI time and again. Dulmatin has a $10m price on his head while Umar Patek has $1m. Both are hiding in Mindanao and Sulu in southern Philippines.

Jemaah Islamiah may be qualified as al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia as much as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is a franchise in Algeria and environs, and al-Qaeda Homebase is in Afghanistan-Pakistan.

al-qaeda in Southeast Asia, like all such groups that want to be tagged as al-Qaeda-linked, refuses to be called an insurgency group. Rather, they prefer to be known as Islamic militant resistance.

The armed Islamic militant resistance group JI has undertakings in Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. These countries have their respective significant Muslim population but the al-Qaeda agit-propaganda of jihad because of religious persecution has not caught fire in these countries.

Their fight for religious freedom a.k.a. establishment of Islamist states that follow the extreme rules of Sharia is a fantasy meme gone harmful in the form of militant ideology. Unfortunately for them, the countries in Southeast Asia where they want to exercise their fantasy meme do not trust the hate they propagate. That is why their jihad has not, and will not, prosper.

Singapore is busy being a country of malls where shopping is a sport, and where they’d rather manufacture the lucrative H1N1 vaccines. The country is also a police state.

Indonesia’s relentless passion to remain democratic is indefatigable, in spite of its 95 percent Muslim population that may potentially be tapped towards Islamist ideology.

Malaysia and Thailand would rather continue conducting democratic processes such as elections, no matter how chaotic.

The Philippines is busy with political infighting and the never-ending debate between the Catholic Church and the State on reproductive health bill issues.

In the meantime, al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia is busy concocting its latest batch of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) across the region, and detonating them through cell phones when rare opportunities arise – because that’s all they can do.

Image 1
Image 2

The Uighurs are an ethnic group composed mostly of Muslim people who want their territory, the Xinjiang province in western China, to become independent. In their claim for self-rule and self-determination, they have ‘staged bombings and other attacks against Chinese police, government, and military targets.’

Perhaps because the Uighurs call their homeland in China as East Turkestan (places suffixed with –tan or, maybe, -stan are apparently suspect), some of them were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2001 and incarcerated along with the so-called terrorists at the height of what became the ubiquitous crackdown known as the eponymous ‘war on terror.’ The Uighurs were accused of being militants seeking training in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Among the inmates at Guantanamo, the Uighurs paid a comparatively simpler price from the menu of punishments inflicted on terror suspects. They were merely held in isolation in Camp Six, a ‘supermax’ facility. They were held for 22 hours a day in cells without natural light, consequently leading to a ‘serious decline in the Uighur’s mental health.’ But, here’s the rub. Even after they were no longer classed as ‘enemy combatants’ and were approved for release, they continued to be held in solitary confinement.

Because Guantanamo is closing down (the move is just a little bit stalled because Obama is being denied the funds needed for the close down), Gitmo detainees are being farmed out to whoever would want to take them (within the US and in other countries). The U.S. isn’t considering bringing back these Uighurs to China for fear they may be persecuted, as they are clearly deemed by the communist regime as dangerous separatists.

Canada and Australia had already earlier expressed reluctance in providing asylum to the Guantanamo Uighurs mostly to avoid retaliation from China that has been demanding that these persons be returned to the country. China has declared that it will not look kindly at any nation that accepts these Uighurs. Germany is changing its mind, as well, whereas it was earlier willing to accept some of the Uighurs.

These Uighurs can’t be ‘thrown’ to Africa, either, because, as we have noticed by now, China is Africa’s hegemon. The ‘Made in China’ phenomenon is quite big in the African continent and found almost anywhere: from Sudan’s Shenyang F-7 fighter jets to Mugabe’s bathroom slippers with plaited lily leaves.

The tiny Pacific island nation of Palau has recently volunteered to take these Uighurs when Guantanamo closes. Palau President Johnson Toribiong said his country would be “honored and proud” to take the detainees as a “humanitarian gesture.” Palau, he said, had “agreed to accommodate the United States of America’s request” to “temporarily resettle” the detainees, “subject to periodic review.”

Even after the US pledged $200 million in aid to one of the least populated countries on earth, these Guantanamo Uighurs may not really leave Cuba for Palau. Some Palau residents have expressed their fear of the former prisoners. The proposed resettlement of these Chinese Muslims has even ‘sparked anger among islanders who fear for the safety of the tranquil tourist haven.’ If you’re an entire nation with all of 21,000 in population, every single complaint can be heard.

These Guantanamo Uighurs are being tossed about even before they even see any high seas.

America isn’t the enemy of the Uighurs; China is. Such is the fate of global untouchables made victims by the ‘terrorist’ stigma. (With much difficulty, I’m restraining myself from putting in superlative modifiers here.)

So, no one to take them, these Guantanamo Uighurs can stay in my house.

The Philippines is as much a paradise as Palau is (only 500 miles between the two countries). I have two huge spare rooms in my hillside home that overlooks Metro Manila (lots of sunshine and natural light!). I cook a mean mushroom-rice pilaf with braised tofu. For their delectation, I can always prepare tapioca pudding. They would love my sinaing na tulingan (slow-cooked Philippine round tuna) and nilasing na hipon (beer-braised prawns). For their delectation, I can always prepare our favorite thirst quencher of sweetened tapioca balls and diced agar-agar (seaweed) jello over crushed ice.

Heck, even if they were found to be experts at breaking down an AK-47, it doesn’t matter to me. I doubt if they can ‘break down’ the home-made improvised Philippine firearm called sumpak. Even high-tech US soldiers (in guerrilla warfare training in Philippine jungles) are baffled at how this weapon is made.

Introspecting (yes, I indulge in it once in a while), I find 10 good reasons why I can’t seem to haul myself on the panic bandwagon of this global warming rabblerousing racket.

1) I come from the so-called Third World where we eat panic for breakfast.

2) This country lies on the typhoon belt and I’ve experienced really raging typhoons (in fact, far worse than what we get now) way before global warming became a rage. (If we are to believe the panic-peddlers, every storm nowadays is caused by climate change).

3) I’m quite used to floods as they are a common occurrence in these parts and they are caused not by a rising sea level (or a sinking seashore) but clogged drainage systems due to garbage (utterly inefficient solid waste management), illegal logging, and illegal mining (both either due to patronage politics or power contracts granted to wily multinationals by en even wilier government). Can’t seem to link it up to melting polar ice, sorry.

4.) I come from a country that is an archipelago. I’ve seen entire shores disappear during high tide. No wonder I can’t seem to attribute the ‘rising sea levels,’ yet once again, to melting ice caps.

5) Al Gore looked less gorgeous to me after reading about his mansion consuming more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in an entire year, more than 20 times the national average. (I should have known those guys at the Nobel Institute do not really do the perfunctory background checks.)

6) My carbon footprint is comparatively insignificant. I don’t eat meat so I’m not guilty of the spoils of the global meat industry (the ‘emissions’ from bovine are said to deplete the ozone layer, and that the transport of meat uses the fossil fuel gas. I really don’t source my stuff from the grocery store (again, products need to be transported around in fossil fuel-generated vehicles).

I rarely preen in the mirror, making me almost unaware that there’s such a thing as a hair dryer that uses electricity. I rarely iron my clothes. I never found the compelling reason to iron t-shirts and shorts. This is the tropics, for crying out loud.

My car runs on LPG. I’ll convert to CNG once that gets commercial around here.

If you care to know your personal carbon footprint, you can find the carbon footprint calculator here.

7) I just read that the ‘US Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050.’ And that will ‘basically mean the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020.’ Besides learning that the move will only reduce global temperature ‘by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100,’ I’m also not a big fan of nuclear energy. It’s like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea (even if I love the deep blue sea).

8) I also read that the evaluation of the corn ethanol and soy biodiesel productions in the US revealed that these are, in fact, a carbon catastrophe, producing more emissions than gasoline. There goes the heavily-subsidized corn ethanol industry under the Obama administration.

9) I live in a very warm city, making me conclude that what causes the rise in earth’s temperature is urbanization where trees and greenery had to give way to concrete and cement that absorbs heat. Besides, would there really be free-flowing air that can cool down the temperature when skyscrapers are stacked close to one another?

And lastly –

10) Ice does melt, doesn’t it? If this planet were covered in ice, then I’d panic.

The United States used to own the commercial and diplomatic franchise in Southeast Asia’s economic and political fate and fortune. Such is no longer the case. China has been on a rampage to steal the thunder from the US over the past few years. It has been quite a strategic move, in fact. It also has nothing to do with the global economic meltdown. China has been on a ‘soft power’ campaign over the region.

One of the most recent of such overtures is a new investment fund and loan package, trumpeted as timely means to ‘help alleviate the impact of the global financial crisis in the countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’ – this, to the tune of US$10 billion investment fund to be used in cooperative projects in infrastructure construction, energy and natural resources development, and improvements in information and communications.

To top this, China also recently pledged another $15 billion credit line that can be availed of ‘over the next three to five years by needy ASEAN countries.’

Here is a list of the most recent strategic financial moves of China in Southeast Asia (apart from the upwards of $14 billion shelled out by the country for the ASEAN region from 2002-2007):

• $39.7 million “special aid” to Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar (ASEAN’s poorest members and closest China allies) earmarked to meet these countries’ “urgent needs.”

• $5 million to the China-ASEAN Cooperation Fund

• $900,000 to the ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea cooperation fund

• 2,000 government scholarships and 200 Master’s scholarships for public administration students over the next five years from developing ASEAN countries

• 1,000 agricultural technicians to receive training in China over the next three years

• 300,000 tons of rice to an emergency East Asia reserve intended to boost food security

• China-ASEAN scheme to create high-quality, high-yield crop demonstration farms in ASEAN countries.

• A proposed China-ASEAN free-trade zone that would create quicker trade

China’s aid to Southeast Asia has now surpassed that of the US.

The “accelerated economic integration” aid packages come with a lot of perks for the Chinese economy, as well as political ambitions, such as:

• China’s trade with the 10-member ASEAN has nearly doubled from $105.9 billion in 2004 to $202.5 billion in 2007

• In spite of the rising effect of the global economic crisis, Chinese trade in ASEAN ‘accelerated’ in 2008 by 14% or the amount of US$231.12 billion. This makes ASEAN China’s fourth-largest trading partner

• There is now a general pro-Chinese sentiment in the region, making it easier for Chinese companies to secure contracts for natural gas exploration in Myanmar, large scale agriculture projects in the Philippines, and build transportation infrastructure in Thailand and Laos

• China has slowly repaired its image in the region via numerous ‘goodwill investments’ such as the construction of national stadiums, cultural centers, and friendship roads and bridges.

ASEAN’S magnanimous neighbor has also been increasing its naval might, making the maritime nations of Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam wary of China’s impending plans. China is also adamant in staking its claims on the fuel-rich Spratly Islands, claimed by the Philippines as within its territorial waters.

Which brings to light China’s real intention in Southeast Asia.

China’s improved relations with Southeast Asia, bought through ‘aid,’ have everything to do with the struggle for regional dominance that is still attributed to the US. As it is widely known, US strategic presence in Asia is very much due to its overwhelming presence in Southeast Asia. China’s soft power initiatives in the region, therefore, have slowly but surely stolen the dominant position from the US.

Dig even deeper and you’re bound to hit the real reason behind China’s generosity and magnanimity.

Southeast Asia is the most strategic geographical point in the potential US-China conflict. Much of ‘China’s oil and gas imports pass through the narrow Malacca Straits, a potential strategic chokepoint.’ There is also such a thing as the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. China is already a signatory in 2003 while the US isn’t, still. In the event of a US-China conflict, the ASEAN position is of crucial importance.

So, aid is never really just aid. In fact, aid has nothing to do with aid at all.